Matthew O'Toole
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I appreciate my colleague's giving way. Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the Minister's remarks — like her, I have been in the Chamber for a lot of today, so I had to pop out and attend to some other business. I presume that the Member will agree that these provisions could be more properly included in the Sentencing Bill.”
“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”
“We learned about the antics of Jeffrey Donaldson that were not criminal — so far — only after his conviction. Reporters have been able to go and find that information and people have been able to speak — felt able to speak — because Mr Donaldson has been sent to prison, convicted of appalling crimes, and is therefore less likely to seek r…”
“We are pleased, in broad terms, to support it at Second Stage. We welcome the move towards an approach to fisheries management that is ecosystem-based rather than narrowly species-based.”
“We were robust in opposing those who were not willing to deal with the nutrients action plan, for example, which should have been a core part of dealing with Lough Neagh. Of course, the farming industry needed to be engaged, and the Minister has been doing a lot of that work recently.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In just a few hours' time, the House will go into recess for more than two months. There are two outstanding and grave matters that the public in Northern Ireland want us to deal with, but we are walking away, so I want your advice on Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,909 lines we hold for Matthew O'Toole, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 119.
“The world is regressing from the principles of international law, multilateralism and respect for human rights and moving towards being a place where might means right and the attitude is, "We have more weapons than you, so we are going to bomb you, rather than sit down, engage and try to leverage a better outcome for all our people". <BR /> <BR />I make no apology whatsoever for saying that I and my party believe fundamentally in the European project as being the greatest peace process in the history of the world. We have repeated that and will do so for decades.”
“<BR /> <BR />For those who are not aware of what the presidency of the European Council is, it involves member states taking the opportunity to chair, coordinate and lead the agenda of the European Union at Council level. The Council is the forum by which the member states and their heads of Government engage, collaborate and set the strategic direction for Europe. <BR /> <BR />What a moment. As we have discussed today, we see that conflict is deepening in the world. Irresponsible actors use aggressive military action to solve disputes, rather than diplomatic means.”
“Thank you very much. I know that that is a limit, rather than a target; I infer from your tone that I should it interpret it in that way. <BR /> <BR />I am very pleased to move the motion on behalf of the Opposition. It is further to many motions that the SDLP and other parties have sponsored on the subject of collaborating, cooperating and, ideally from our perspective, eventually rejoining with the European Union. You do not have to agree with every word of our motion to agree with its broad thrust, which is that it is clearly in the interests of this region to maximise the opportunities from engagement with the European Union and, specifically, seize upon the Irish presidency of the European Council to maximise that closeness for economic, cultural, social and, yes, diplomatic advantage.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Did you say that I have 10 minutes?”
“— public really feel that delivery is simply not happening.”
“Thank you, deputy First Minister. To be clear, I have no difficulty with the idea of a delivery unit. I used to work in Whitehall: there was one there that did work for a long time, and, as you said, they are used in other devolved jurisdictions. I have no issue with them in principle. <BR /> <BR />The public in Northern Ireland, however, simply do not see delivery from the Executive, and, worse than that, they see no prioritisation of delivery. They see you and the First Minister struggling even to attend the same meeting. To that end, deputy First Minister, will you update the House on clear and precise priorities not just for the delivery unit but for the whole Executive? Two years on from the restoration of the institutions, whether it is on waiting lists, on which, I understand, work is going on, Casement Park or the Maze, the —”
“Deputy First Minister, I will do something that I do not always do and follow up on a question that I have asked before. I asked about the work of the delivery unit: delivery is something that the public across Northern Ireland want but do not feel that they are getting from the Executive. That is clear; it is evident from all the polling and is evident when we go out on the street and talk to the public.”
“Deputy First Minister, we are keen to hear, as Mr Kingston said, about what the delivery unit is actually doing. The unit was heavily trailed in the Programme for Government, so it is legitimate to ask about it. So far today, we have heard that it is both a tugboat and a magpie. I am all for mixing metaphors when it is appropriate, but I want to know exactly what the delivery unit has delivered — no pun intended. You said that you and the First Minister would bring recommendations from the delivery unit to the Executive. How many have you brought, and what have they been?”
“I appreciate the Deputy Chair of the Audit Committee's giving way. Would it not have been better to retain the peg or benchmark with judicial salary grade 5 until the review that you have talked about concludes? The review is happening, but we are breaking the link before it has concluded. Would it not have been better to leave that link in place transparently until the review comes up with a thought-through alternative?”
“This is utterly destabilising, and it is frightening for the public here and around the world, including the Irish and British citizens who are caught up in the Middle East. <BR /> <BR />There will be a range of other consequences, including for the many people in this part of the world who fill their oil tank up with home heating oil, because oil prices have gone up. I ask people who cheerlead such irresponsible, illegal action in the same way as they cheerled the illegal action of genocide in Gaza, to think through the consequences for the world that we live in and for our children and grandchildren. Nothing that happened at the weekend gives me faith in stability for the future.”
“Thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered by the Iranian regime, but that does not mean that the correct way to address the situation with Iran is to bomb it from the sky. That is already causing instability. We read today about a conflagration with consequences across the Middle East in terms of, yes, organisations such as Hezbollah that are sponsored by Iran. The Middle East has been destabilised, and I do not know what the consequences will be, because I do not think that the consequences have been planned for. I think that Donald Trump is, to quote Mr Beattie, a madman. His Government do not care about stability and do not have a plan. The idea that this is some kind of carefully thought-through way of disarming Iran is complete nonsense.”
“However, the American Government and their allies should have realised by now that, even if the regime in question is appalling, reprehensible and indefensible, bombing it from the air has not proven to be a successful means of engendering something better, democratic and stable in the region. I am afraid that simply bombing the Middle East from the air has not produced stable, democratic government there. There is much truth in what Members on the Benches opposite say about Iran: it is a reprehensible regime that is causing instability elsewhere. They are not wrong, but my question is whether bombing it from the air has proven to be a successful means of dealing with it. <BR /> <BR />The Iranian people deserve better than what they have under the ayatollahs. They deserve to live in freedom, and they deserve to live in peace.”
“To touch on Mr Beattie's point, I hope that what we are trying to achieve is a peaceful world in which international law is respected and people all over it can live in peace, prosperity and dignity. I am afraid that, if that is the end goal, doing what Donald Trump and his regime did over the weekend, which was to launch unilateral strikes on Iran, is not the way to do it. The Iranian Government are reprehensible and indefensible — they have committed human rights abuses and are authoritarian and unacceptable — just as Saddam Hussein's secular regime, which was an entirely different type of Middle Eastern regime, was reprehensible and unacceptable more than 20 years ago.”
“Is he trying to tackle it? Will that be looked at during the open-book exercise? By the way, that is not a left/right question, and nor is it a question about underfunding. Is he concerned that stuff has always been profiled in a certain way because people do not want to lose any of their budget?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Further to that comment, I am interested in the Minister's view on this. We can agree that we would like more money, and we can be sceptical about the Treasury and the funding model that applies to this place. He and I agree on the long-term future. However, does he also agree — I have kind of heard this from him and have certainly heard it from his officials in Committee — that, given the way in which our model works, there is sometimes an incentive for officials in other Departments to profile in spending that they have always profiled in, even if it is not a high priority in the context of what the Executive are doing, and even if it is not necessarily delivering the best possible outcomes, whether they relate to poverty reduction, healthcare or whatever else? Is he concerned about that?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Even when we disagree, he is willing to have a debate. <BR /> <BR />The Member talked about the money being spent on the Windsor framework. That is a consequence of Brexit, so, in a sense, I agree with him in that I would rather that it was not spent at all. <BR /> <BR />As has been said, whatever your view on the extent to which the British Government are responsible for the position that we find ourselves in, we are ultimately reliant on the British Government for the block grant. They spent more than £100 million of public money on an operating model for the border between GB and the EU — Dover/Calais — and they had to abandon it. Does the Member agree that that is a waste of public money?”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. Further to his point about what I said earlier about Ministers' taking responsibility, does he agree that the outworking of that is that the members of his party who are Ministers, and the Ministers from other parties, need to take responsibility and agree a multi-year Budget and, while we are at it, the investment strategy? I have significant criticisms of decisions that have been taken by the Finance Minister, but there is a draft Budget. You guys need to agree it, change it or work to change it because, if there is nothing at all, the infrastructure position is not going to get any better.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way for the purpose of healthy debate. He mentioned the benefits of being part of the sixth-largest economy: we can debate all of that, and, of course, Brexit substantially reduced the size of the UK's economy versus what it would have been. He talked about His Majesty's Government, but does he accept that the public here pay taxes, whether they like it or not, to His Majesty's Revenue and Customs? We are not getting beneficence out of the goodness of their heart; people here pay their taxes.”
“The DUP is jointly in charge of the Executive with the Finance Minister, so it is natural that I ask those questions. I appreciate the Member giving way. <BR /> <BR />I ask this question because there is an irony here. The Finance Minister's party will often say that the UK Government are awful and evil and that austerity is a huge problem that is responsible for absolutely everything. The DUP will say that His Majesty's Treasury has generously given us this beneficence and we are grateful supplicants and subjects. However, you will both claim credit when you negotiate a balance transfer. Is that not a strange irony, which gets to the heart of our problem in this place?”
“If we get a final, agreed, multi-year Budget, will there be anything in it on additional powers for revenue-raising/fiscal devolution in the North?”
“We were supposed to be able to start doing that transformation two years ago. That is what we were told by your predecessor and your colleagues, but, clearly, it has not properly started in earnest. Minister, the public out there will wonder what has happened. Yes, I agree that the Treasury does not prioritise this place — you will never find me disagreeing with that — but the corollary to that is that, if we are going to negotiate with the Treasury, which you have just said that you will do, we have to demonstrate that we are engaged in meaningful transformation and that we want to take more fiscal powers here in order to take more responsibility for ourselves. I have seen no evidence of either of those things.”
“If I forward correspondence to the Minister, will he ask his officials to have a look at it to see whether they are satisfied or whether any further action needs to be taken by the Department to raise”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. First, I recognise that financial conduct and related matters are not his direct ministerial responsibility. Given the Minister's interest in the area, however, I put on record the very serious concerns that I have about the experience of my constituent Ms Jamison, whom a tribunal found was unfairly dismissed by an entity named the Bank of London. It is a clearing bank that operates here, and there are very serious concerns about its propriety. Its PR was done by none other than a certain Lord Mandelson. I therefore have very serious concerns. Ms Jamison blew the whistle and is still being hounded by the bank.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. When there is no time limit on the debate, it is easy to be generous with your concessions. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the Member that there should be alignment between the Budget and the Programme for Government. I draw his attention to an amendment to the Fiscal Council Bill that has been tabled by the Opposition and would require the Fiscal Council to report on the exact question of whether Budgets are aligned with Programmes for Government. I encourage the Member and his party to support it.”
“Then, when it comes to something as grave as this — as the Finance Minister said in his opening remarks, we are authorising the spending of £30 billion today — we come in, we nod along and we do not take responsibility for improving public services. The public have lost trust in these institutions and the people who populate them, because we simply are not taking responsibility. <BR /> <BR />The Opposition will not divide the House on the Budget Bill, because we look forward to a proper debate on a multi-year Budget, when the parties of the Executive agree one and it finally comes to us, ideally with a plan for the people of Northern Ireland that shows how the Executive intend to improve public services and deliver some improvement in their lives. I say that because the past two years have seen a signal failure to do anything of the sort.”
“He and his officials constantly discuss that with other Departments, asking them, "Why are you profiling that spending in that way? Are you genuinely prioritising the things that matter most" — that is supposed to be the title of the Programme for Government — "or are you simply continuing to do what you did before without prioritising genuine transformation?". <BR /> <BR />The problem, as we debate yet another Budget Bill, is that the public look on and lose trust in the willingness and ability of the Executive to prioritise their needs by improving their public services: making healthcare work, getting waiting lists down, delivering affordable childcare and improving infrastructure. They see us marking time, coming here to pass pointless motions.”
“Furthermore, if, as the Fiscal Council says, the opening position for the Health and Education Departments in the 2026-27 financial year is already behind where those Departments are likely to finish in the 2025-26 financial year, we will be starting at a detriment. <BR /> <BR />The Finance Minister will say, "That's a result of underfunding and long-term austerity from the British Government". He is right about that in part, but he is not wholly right, because local Ministers have responsibilities and powers. They have the power to improve things locally. Otherwise, why bother? Otherwise, why take up ministerial office? Otherwise, why tell, as the Finance Minister does, other Departments to live within their means?”
“However, here and now, in the context of our current constitutional dispensation, we need to do everything that we can to deal with the situation that we find ourselves in. We need to manage our finances properly here and to seek the maximum fiscal devolution and the greatest level of power locally so that decisions are not made in London. I say in parenthesis that we have not seen those plans from the Finance Minister — we have heard a lot of rhetoric — but it is our job to scrutinise what is happening in public services and spending. <BR /> <BR />We have a £400 million reserve claim. That £400 million is not a balance that can continue to be transferred, year after year, from one credit card provider to another. It will have to come out of the Budget next year and the year after that.”
“We then come to the position in the Budget this year and what will happen next year. Today, the Fiscal Council, an independent fiscal watchdog that we are putting on a statutory footing, described as "a de facto bailout" the £400 million reserve claim from the Treasury that has gone to the Executive before the end of the financial year. That "de facto bailout" gets to the heart of the Executive's failure to grip the long-term challenges. <BR /> <BR />Let us be absolutely clear about this, because the Minister cast some unfair and inappropriate doubt yesterday. The Opposition want to build a new Ireland, where we hold all the fiscal powers on this island, and, I believe, that is also what the Finance Minister wants.”
“That is the bare minimum that the public should expect when they elect a Government.”
“The Finance Minister will say — perhaps he has some legitimacy for doing so — that he is trying to get a multi-year Budget agreed, and, to the extent that he has done so, I commend him. <BR /> <BR />The draft multi-year Budget is a scant and high-level few pages of allocations. It was published on 6 January, and it is better than nothing. The public in Northern Ireland, however, deserve more than something that is better than nothing, and they will not even get that if the DUP does not face up to its responsibilities and agree a multi-year Budget. That is where we are starting from. Today is an exercise in legally authorising spending in the absence of an agreed strategic plan.”
“The Minister may say in his response to me that the delay is a result of waiting for the UK Government to provide their own multi-year Budget, but that happened last June. We are now eight months on from the UK multi-year Budget. The Executive, led by Sinn Féin and the DUP but with the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party in there too — along for the ride, one might say — were to make improvements to public services. They promised a multi-year Budget. They said that a multi-year Budget would be key to unlocking some of the long-term challenges to improving our public services. Thus far, they have failed. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Minister will tell us today that we have made some progress on agreeing a multi-year Budget, but, thus far, we simply have no evidence that such a Budget will be agreed.”
“They promised the public that they would apply themselves to dealing with the huge challenges facing our public services, particularly the challenges in healthcare, the crisis as a result of the lack of affordable childcare, the ecological crises at Lough Neagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland and the failure to deliver meaningful improvements in infrastructure. <BR /> <BR />The public did not expect miracles. They did not expect everything to be sorted out overnight, but they did expect a serious plan. Part of that serious plan had to be a multi-year Budget to help deliver on the public's priorities, which, the Executive promised, would be prioritised, yet here we are, two years on from the formation of the Executive, with no idea of whether a multi-year Budget will be agreed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I thank the Assembly for allowing me to speak as Chair of the Finance Committee. I will now make some comments as leader of the Opposition. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that we are debating a Budget Bill today. The official Opposition will not divide the House on the Bill's Second Stage. We would like the opportunity to divide the House on a Budget, but we do not know where the Budget is. <BR /> <BR />The Executive were restored two years ago. Ministers came to the Chamber and accepted ministerial office, with the Civil Service resources, chauffeured cars and salaries that come with that.”
“Both Bills are on track for Committee Stage completion by the end of next month. The Minister may want to give us an update on when, he thinks, Consideration Stage could be scheduled for the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, as it has been stated in briefings to the Committee that the Bill's Final Stage will take place in autumn 2026, with Royal Assent in early 2027. The Committee is scheduled to finish its scrutiny on time. I repeat: we will complete that work on time. Given that the Bill's Committee Stage is due to finish in the next month, however, there seems to be a rather significant delay in the legislative process. I find it unusual that it will take a year for the Bill to get from the end of Committee Stage to Royal Assent. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister can give us an update.”
“The previous absence of a functioning Executive and Assembly meant that expenditure that fell into the sole authority category built up. When the Main Estimates were produced, the total amount being sought via sole authority was £13·4 million. Following updates, that figure has increased to £17·2 million, and the majority of Departments have indicated that further legislation is expected by 2027. <BR /> <BR />The Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill are currently being scrutinised by the Finance Committee. Both Bills but particularly the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill will remove a significant amount of what remains in the so-called black box, because they will legislate to provide a legal power for Departments to spend money that does not exist at the minute.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has been led to expect that Consideration Stage for this Budget Bill will be held next Monday, 2 March, with Further Consideration Stage on Tuesday 3 March and Final Stage on Tuesday 10 March, working towards Royal Assent by 23 March and the end of the financial year. <BR /> <BR />I will touch briefly on the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act — the "black box", as it is commonly known. As Members are, no doubt, aware, any charge on public funds must be authorised by legislation and the majority of expenditure by Departments is supported by specific enabling legislation. If that legislation is not in place, expenditure must, generally, rely on sole authority of Budget Acts.”
“<BR /> <BR />As Members will recall, in a previous financial year, the Vote on Account was set at an exceptional 65%. This year's figure of 45% is much more usual, providing, as it does, interim resources and funding for the first few months of the 2026-27 financial year until work on the 2026-27 Main Estimates and Budget (No. 2) Bill has been completed. The figure of 45% may indicate progress on an agreed Budget, but perhaps the Finance Minister will elaborate on that. The Vote on Account ensures that departmental business can continue before the Assembly considers the 2026-27 Budget and Main Estimates prior to the summer recess.”
“Following completion of the December monitoring round process and the "January technical exercise", the Executive agreed the final 2025-26 Budget position on 11 February 2026. That allowed for the completion of spring Supplementary Estimate templates, which required the finalising of departmental expenditure plans, recording on accounting systems, the preparation of Estimate templates and receiving final internal reports and clearance from Ministers. The DOF Supply team compiled the 18 Estimates across Departments and public bodies. That is what is contained in the spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum. The completion of the 2025-26 spring Supplementary Estimates provides a reconciliation between the Main Estimates Budget position and the spring Supplementary Estimates Budget position.”
“It is important to stress that Executive Budgets set the Executive's spending plans but do not give Departments the legal authority to spend the money: that is what Budget Bills and Supply resolutions do. <BR /> <BR />This Budget Bill signals that we are coming to the end of the 2025-26 financial year, with departmental accounts comparing their audited out-turn with the limits voted by the Assembly. The 2025-26 Budget began its life on 3 April 2025, following its agreement by the Executive. Following that, the Main Estimates 2025-26 were prepared, and the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025 received Royal Assent on 28 July 2025, giving Departments the authority to spend.”
“There is pressure on the Finance Committee not just to understand the processes and terminology involved but to explain them to colleagues, and we continue in our efforts to do that. <BR /> <BR />As Members are aware, Budget Bills provide the statutory means for the Assembly to authorise spending by Departments and for the issuing of cash to Departments to fund that expenditure. Budget Bills hold Departments accountable for managing and controlling expenditure within the limits authorised for that financial year. As I indicated, Budget Bills are supported by the Estimates process, with the December monitoring round and final Budget position having been agreed by the Executive on 11 February.”
“We take that job seriously and will continue to advance that work, but I say gently to other statutory Committees that the scrutiny of their Departments' budgets is their job, as is familiarising themselves with the Budget process, including the purpose of Estimates documents and Budget Bills. That would be useful for other statutory Committees, as it is not in the purview only of the Finance Committee. During the Committee's consideration of the Bill and in all our evidence sessions on the Budget and related matters, it has reflected on the considerable complexity of the Budget process, which tends to be compounded by the use of technical terms and accounting principles that are alien to most of us.”
“<BR /> <BR />Officials have warned the Committee not to expect extensive Barnett consequentials in the years to come, and members have noted a potential cliff edge in the 2026-27 Budget as aspects of the Executive restoration settlement end. The Committee therefore urges all Departments to apply their efforts to living within budgets and move beyond the culture of overcommitting budgets in the hope that Westminster Estimates, Barnett consequentials or, as is the case in this financial year, reserve claims will come to the rescue and provide for the shortfall. <BR /> <BR />The Finance Committee has been commissioning much more detailed information on departmental spending that we are sharing with other statutory Committees.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee is conscious that the Bill is to legislate for the reconciliation of accounts for 2025-26, but members are also aware of the impact that balancing this Budget will have on the Budgets of subsequent financial years. The Committee notes the provision of a £400 million reserve claim by the Treasury for this financial year that will obviously need to be repaid in future financial years. While the Committee welcomed the provision of the claim, there are outstanding questions about the full nature and purpose of the "open book" exercise that has been referenced. The impact of that exercise and its short timescale, the impact of the repayment of the reserve claim over the next three financial years and how the Executive will cope remain to be seen.”
“Following engagement with stakeholders, the Committee has noted that our Budgets would be much more strategic and better applied if they were directly linked to the Programme for Government (PFG). In addition, multi-year Budgets provide security to invest and reform, and members are extremely supportive of the aspiration to have a multi-year Budget. The Committee notes that consultation on the draft multi-year Budget closed on 2 March — excuse me, will close on 2 March — we have not reached that date yet; I am messing around with time and space — and we anticipate hearing the Minister's next steps, considering that, at the moment, it remains a draft Budget without Executive approval.”
“The Committee has received legal advice on that wording. Without a Committee Stage, the Committee is not in a position to provide input to the Bill. Standing Order 42(2) may have to be reviewed to be more reflective of the reality of the situation. That is not to say that officials did not brief us; it is to say that the Bill, unlike all other Bills, does not have a normal Committee Stage, so there is some merit, as members from various parties have said, in looking again at the usefulness of that phrase. Nevertheless, we gave our approval, and we are grateful to the officials who gave us a briefing. <BR /> <BR />We appreciate that, as a devolved legislature, we are, of course, subject to the actions and timescales at Westminster for the allocation of our Budget and the Estimates processes to which it is subject.”
“Obviously, the Finance Committee and, indeed, all Members have an ongoing job of scrutinising the Budget; indeed, we have Budget documents that provide an opportunity for the Assembly to give its view on the Executive's overall spending programme. I will talk about that later. <BR /> <BR />The Finance Committee received a briefing on the Bill and on the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2025-26 and the Vote on Account for 2026-27 at its meeting on Wednesday 18 February. At that point, the Committee had sight of the Bill. As I mentioned, the Committee's agreement to accelerated passage is predicated on appropriate consultation as per Standing Order 42(2). While every Budget Bill has been given accelerated passage, members are still somewhat wary of the phrase "appropriate consultation".”
“I turn to the request for the granting of accelerated passage, which is a specific and formal responsibility of the Finance Committee. At its meeting on 18 February, the Committee arrived at a consensus that the Bill should be granted accelerated passage. That was not a formality, albeit it is a habitual thing in the Finance Committee. There was debate around the basis for that agreement, because we are obliged to give the Speaker assurance that we have had appropriate consultation. The decision to grant accelerated passage was unanimous, but that does not necessarily mean that there will be unanimous support for the Bill. All Members will agree, I am sure, that accelerated passage is not the ideal way to do business. However, Budget processes are different, and a Budget Bill is unlikely to pass in time without it.”
“I will begin by speaking as Chair of the Finance Committee, reflecting the viewpoint of the whole Committee. I thank Diane Forsythe, the Deputy Chair, who spoke on behalf of the Committee in the Supply resolution debate yesterday. Diane's experience as an accountant and auditor has been useful to the Committee as a whole and has added to our scrutiny, and we thank her for that. <BR /> <BR />I also thank the Minister for his comments. Obviously, we seek to continue and maintain the generally constructive engagement between the Committee and the Department, notwithstanding our job of scrutiny and occasional moments of challenge.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I will say a couple of things. First, in my remarks, as he heard, I said that the funding model — the way in which and the amount to which we are funded — is not enough. I did say that, and it is wrong to say that I did not. Secondly, the Minister also says consistently at that lectern that Departments should live within their means, need to transform and need to spend better. What is contradictory between what I say about improving the way in which we spend our money and what he says when he says the same thing? Why is what I say somehow inappropriate and giving succour to the NIO, but, when he says it, it is responsible government?”